Canon 24-70 2.8 ii or 35mm 1.4 ii
- Thread starter Ryan85
- Start date
Get the 35 f2 IS instead, only one stop more speed, but the IS helps a lot and in most situations will give you a 'better' image than another stop less dof.
The size and weight advantage of the f2 IS is substantial and you won't have to sell the 24-70 to get it.
This is what I did and couldn't be happier.
The size and weight advantage of the f2 IS is substantial and you won't have to sell the 24-70 to get it.
This is what I did and couldn't be happier.
Upvote
0
Ryan85 said:
All these things are subjective, but yes it is plenty sharp enough and plenty fast enough to focus.
Upvote
0
I have the same dilemma. I consider selling the 24-70f/2.8 LII to fund the 35mm f1.4LII. I have the 35 f/2. It is a very good lens, but I miss the color and contrast that many L-lenses have. I find that when needing that f/2.8 aperture, I always wish for an even larger aperture, such as f/1.4. For daytime use, when there is enough light, the 24-70f/4L IS is 97 percent as good as the f/2.8, but in a smaller and lighter package.
At the same time, that 24-70 f/2.8 LII is too good to be parted with... I will probably end up saving for the 35LII...
At the same time, that 24-70 f/2.8 LII is too good to be parted with... I will probably end up saving for the 35LII...
Upvote
0
i own the 35L II it is amazing - but so is the 24-70 F2.8 II - i would never sell one to buy the other
there a few big differences between the 35L ii and the 35F2
- weight is a huge difference
- weather sealing
- 35L II is tack sharp almost across the entire frame at F1.4 (it is stunning)
- the 35F2 is not tack sharp at F2 but is at F2.2 - but it is acceptably sharp at F2
- the 35F2 is not sharp across the frame at F2 like the 35L II is at 1.4 so you get the traditional center sharp rendering effect
- the IS on the 35F2 is excellent
If you use the 24-70 F2.8 II don't sell it - you will regret it.
The Sigma 1.4, the Tamron 1.8 or the Canon F2 are all good cheaper alternatives.
there a few big differences between the 35L ii and the 35F2
- weight is a huge difference
- weather sealing
- 35L II is tack sharp almost across the entire frame at F1.4 (it is stunning)
- the 35F2 is not tack sharp at F2 but is at F2.2 - but it is acceptably sharp at F2
- the 35F2 is not sharp across the frame at F2 like the 35L II is at 1.4 so you get the traditional center sharp rendering effect
- the IS on the 35F2 is excellent
If you use the 24-70 F2.8 II don't sell it - you will regret it.
The Sigma 1.4, the Tamron 1.8 or the Canon F2 are all good cheaper alternatives.
Upvote
0
This really is a decision only you can make. In my world this is a "do I add" question, not a "do I replace" question.
I sold the 35mm L f/1.4 not long ago and bought the version II. It is an awesome lens.
I have owned the 24-70 II since release.
The 35mm original I used when I wanted that special feel that you can only get with the 35mm at f/1.8 or wider.
I use the new version exactly the same way. I can tell you it doesn't get used often. In my toolbox I see it as a specialty lens.
The 24-70mm II stays on my camera and goes everywhere.
If you are looking at specializing at 35mm then it would be a no contest, go for the 35mm. For all else, stick with the 24-70 II.
I sold the 35mm L f/1.4 not long ago and bought the version II. It is an awesome lens.
I have owned the 24-70 II since release.
The 35mm original I used when I wanted that special feel that you can only get with the 35mm at f/1.8 or wider.
I use the new version exactly the same way. I can tell you it doesn't get used often. In my toolbox I see it as a specialty lens.
The 24-70mm II stays on my camera and goes everywhere.
If you are looking at specializing at 35mm then it would be a no contest, go for the 35mm. For all else, stick with the 24-70 II.
Upvote
0
I like the Sigma Art 35, but then again, I have had decent AF results, and I also use it a lot for MF.
It all depends on your work style. Currently I work with primes. Occasionally I wish I had a zoom, mostly for situations where I don't want to change lenses or don't want to haul a lot of gear.
It all depends on your work style. Currently I work with primes. Occasionally I wish I had a zoom, mostly for situations where I don't want to change lenses or don't want to haul a lot of gear.
Upvote
0
my two cents
24-70 II if you need the last 5% of image quality go for the 35
if not its a no brainer!!
24-70 II if you need the last 5% of image quality go for the 35
if not its a no brainer!!
Upvote
0
Been struggling with this problem as well, I own both the 35mm 1.4 II and the 24-70 2.8 II the main advantage to the prime for me is the 1.4 aperture and the way it forces me to plan my shot more and walk around more with it versus the 24-70 making me lazy? in a way as I can just zoom thus not really moving around and checking if theres a better place to get the shot from.
However the convenience of a zoom with the 24-70mm is also a great thing as I tend to take my gear in very rough conditions where the sensor/mirror box get very dirty very fast so not having to switch lenses that much is a real blessing at times.
My advice go for the 35mm 1.4 ii if you're looking to do something different with your photography as the look you get from it is something truly magical and it's sharpness at f1.4 is incredible, but if you don't need that then the 24-70 2.8 ii is the best option as it is one of the best lenses Canon has ever made IMO.
However the convenience of a zoom with the 24-70mm is also a great thing as I tend to take my gear in very rough conditions where the sensor/mirror box get very dirty very fast so not having to switch lenses that much is a real blessing at times.
My advice go for the 35mm 1.4 ii if you're looking to do something different with your photography as the look you get from it is something truly magical and it's sharpness at f1.4 is incredible, but if you don't need that then the 24-70 2.8 ii is the best option as it is one of the best lenses Canon has ever made IMO.
Upvote
0
Cheekysascha said:
I found that I rarely used the 24-70 at f/2.8. When shooting in low light I want a prime. When shooting in daylight I usually pick the 16-35 f/4 L IS, or the 24-70 f/4 L IS. When stopped down the difference in performance between the two 24-70s is negligible, in my opinion. Therefore, the 24-70 f/2.8 didn't see that much use, but I was always impressed with it's results. I may have to get another when finances allows it.
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
I've never understood this particular argument. If you need or want both then you need to save and buy both. But they are completely different lenses and have very little over lap in abilities. If you go down the fast prime route...then you will need a 24IIL, a 35IIL and a 85IIL to cover a similar focal range to the 24-70 II L. You will gain several stops and it's way easier to melt a background or isolate a subject when working with such slim DOF...which is really tricky too. BUT juggling three primes is a) heavy b) expensive C) inconvenient. The zoom (if you can make it work for you) is a lot lighter, cheaper and far more versatile. I have both and there's a need for both.
Upvote
0
I would only sell off the 24-70 if you're not really taking many shots with it around both 24mm and 70mm i.e. most shots are falling into the 30mm - 50mm range. Both are stellar lenses, but the 35mm 1.4L II, while amazing at what it does, only does that one thing - you'd be giving up a lot of versatility in losing the 24-70.
Perhaps try this for a day or two of shoot - use a thick rubber band or a couple of pieces of gaffer tape to hold the zoom ring at 35mm on the 24-70, and just see how you like shooting at that one focal length for a while.
I love my 35L II, and have never owned Canon's 24-70L II (though I've used plenty of copies in studios and on location a few times), but as others have said, it's probably only worth the switch if you need or really want that last 5% of performance.
Cheers,
d.
Perhaps try this for a day or two of shoot - use a thick rubber band or a couple of pieces of gaffer tape to hold the zoom ring at 35mm on the 24-70, and just see how you like shooting at that one focal length for a while.
I love my 35L II, and have never owned Canon's 24-70L II (though I've used plenty of copies in studios and on location a few times), but as others have said, it's probably only worth the switch if you need or really want that last 5% of performance.
Cheers,
d.
Upvote
0
I'm with Pookie and GMC.
I've owned both. As time goes on, I'm getting a bit more frugal and common sense. I sold the 35 f/1.4L a long time ago after I got the 24-70 f/2.8L II. If you get a good copy of the 24-70, it will replace most of your other lenses for most needs. OTOH, if you have a specific subject or need that only a high end prime will satisfy, by all means, get the prime!
If you're not sure, RENT IT FIRST! Don't sell, buy or commit until you're sure after using it.
Keep in mind also that as camera bodies get better and better, esp with respect to High ISO, the need for a expensive general purpose f/2.8 zoom decreases unless it's the finer DOF isolation that you are after. And if that's the case, the extra fast prime may be the better way to go if you're not primarily compensating for low light. See? Two different situations, two different lenses.
If you are seeking a less expensive but highest L quality kit that will provide the most flexibility... Get a 5D3, 24-70 f/2.8 II and a 70-200 f/2.8 II and call it a day. Add a specialty EF lens or two to the mix for fun and you're good to go. Something like the 40 pancake, 35 f/2 or 50 f/1.4. Or even the 85 f/1.8. I love my EF 15mm f/2.8 FishEye too!
In fact, as good as L lenses are, you will be hard pressed to tell a practical difference in the quality of most EF lenses when compared to L. Sure it's there but will anyone else see it? Part of the reason I own mostly L lenses is due to my outdoor use and the fact that L lenses hold their value very well so when I want to sell one, I will probably get 70-90% of my investment back. (Esp if I buy it used to start with.) Heck, I've even made profit on a couple of lenses I bought used and sold after a couple years.
Of course, if you're just in it for the fun like me, maybe buying L lenses is just what you want to do. I get it. I love L lenses but I'm not kidding myself. I could make do with mostly EF lenses. I'm not a big time pro. I'm just an addicted enthusiast that shoots tens of thousands of images a year for free and most pros probably love to hate. LOL! 8)
I've owned both. As time goes on, I'm getting a bit more frugal and common sense. I sold the 35 f/1.4L a long time ago after I got the 24-70 f/2.8L II. If you get a good copy of the 24-70, it will replace most of your other lenses for most needs. OTOH, if you have a specific subject or need that only a high end prime will satisfy, by all means, get the prime!
If you're not sure, RENT IT FIRST! Don't sell, buy or commit until you're sure after using it.
Keep in mind also that as camera bodies get better and better, esp with respect to High ISO, the need for a expensive general purpose f/2.8 zoom decreases unless it's the finer DOF isolation that you are after. And if that's the case, the extra fast prime may be the better way to go if you're not primarily compensating for low light. See? Two different situations, two different lenses.
If you are seeking a less expensive but highest L quality kit that will provide the most flexibility... Get a 5D3, 24-70 f/2.8 II and a 70-200 f/2.8 II and call it a day. Add a specialty EF lens or two to the mix for fun and you're good to go. Something like the 40 pancake, 35 f/2 or 50 f/1.4. Or even the 85 f/1.8. I love my EF 15mm f/2.8 FishEye too!
In fact, as good as L lenses are, you will be hard pressed to tell a practical difference in the quality of most EF lenses when compared to L. Sure it's there but will anyone else see it? Part of the reason I own mostly L lenses is due to my outdoor use and the fact that L lenses hold their value very well so when I want to sell one, I will probably get 70-90% of my investment back. (Esp if I buy it used to start with.) Heck, I've even made profit on a couple of lenses I bought used and sold after a couple years.
Of course, if you're just in it for the fun like me, maybe buying L lenses is just what you want to do. I get it. I love L lenses but I'm not kidding myself. I could make do with mostly EF lenses. I'm not a big time pro. I'm just an addicted enthusiast that shoots tens of thousands of images a year for free and most pros probably love to hate. LOL! 8)
Upvote
0
